ITAT Indore held that in absence of evidence, expense on fuel cost occurred on deployment of JCB’s on rent needs to be ascertained by way of proper and detailed empirical analysis. Accordingly, matter remanded back to the file of AO.
The Tribunal held that late filing of Form 10DA is a procedural lapse and cannot justify denial of deduction when substantive conditions of Section 80JJAA are fulfilled. Deduction was directed to be allowed as the form was filed before return processing.
he Tribunal held that unsecured loans could not be treated as unexplained cash credits when identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were duly proved. Consistency with earlier rulings involving the same lenders led to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies automatically when stamp value exceeds purchase price. However, it remanded the matter for DVO valuation to ensure fair determination of market value.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits reflecting routine business transactions cannot be treated wholly as unexplained income. Only the profit element embedded in such receipts is taxable.
The Assessing Officer accepted multiple loan transactions but treated only one as unexplained. The tribunal held that selective rejection without consistent reasoning was unsustainable.
The ITAT ruled that rectification proceedings cannot substitute for an appellate remedy against an addition under section 69A. Absence of a mistake apparent from the record justified dismissal.
The ruling emphasizes that statements relied upon by the Revenue must be confronted to the assessee with an opportunity of cross-examination. Failure to do so renders additions legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 87A rebate applies to STCG and LTCG taxed under Sections 111A and 112 when income is within ₹7 lakh. The denial based on system logic and future amendments was rejected.
ITAT Indore held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained deposit is unsustainable in law since the nature and source of the deposit is sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and addition u/s. 69A is deleted.
